Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Glenn MCCLOUD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steve LAKE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM ***
Federal prisoner Glenn McCloud appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
McCloud challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time for committing the prohibited act of disruptive behavior most like possession of a hazardous tool. He argues that he did not receive advance written notice of the charges, that he was denied the right to call his requested witness, and that the disciplinary hearing officers were not impartial. We conclude that there was no due process violation. The incident report McCloud received described the factual situation that was the basis for the charge and thus “adequately performed the functions of notice” articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The record does not reflect that McCloud was denied an impartial decision maker. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). Moreover, on this record, any error that resulted from McCloud’s inability to call his requested witness was harmless, see Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), and the record shows that “some evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Finally, we reject McCloud’s various challenges to the “some evidence” standard set forth in Hill because the Supreme Court “retains the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-15504
Decided: December 13, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)